The Supreme Court has ruled that a woman, if neglected by her husband, cannot eye her mother-in-law’s property for getting maintenance. Maintenance of a married woman is her husband’s personal obligation and the property in her mother-in-law’s name can never be the subject matter of the obligation to maintain a daughter-in-law even after the death of her husband, said a Bench comprising Justices S B Sinha and V S Sirpurkar. A woman lawyer, who had filed several cases against her parents-in-law in Chincholi, Karnataka, had even taken recourse to litigation to see that their property was auctioned for getting the maintenance she was entitled to from their son. Disapproving the extra-legal arguments taken by her and deprecating the trial court and the Karnataka High Court overstretching the law as well as their jurisdiction to go by her pleadings, the Bench said a woman could seek attachment of properties only if her husband had a share in it. This means, if the parents-inlaw’s properties were self-acquired and not inherited, then their daughter-in-law could institute suits seeking attachment of those properties which stood in the name of her husband and not against those owned by his parents. Referring to the plea of the daughter-in-law, Sonalben, the Bench said she might be entitled to maintenance from her husband and the decree in her suit could only be against his properties. “The decree, if any, must be executed against her husband and only his properties could be attached for that but not of her mother-in-law,” said Justice Sinha, writing the judgment for theBench. Referring to the HC order, which was challenged by mother-in-law Vimlaben, the apex court said it suffered from “total non-application of mind” and was “wholly unsustainable”.”

The said orders might have been passed only on consideration that Sonalben is a harassed lady, but the fact that Vimlaben is also a much harassed lady was lost sight of (by the HC),” the Bench said. Directing release of the attached properties to Vimlaben, the court directed Sonalben to give Rs 50,000 to her mother-in-law as cost of litigation.

____________________________________

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

6 Responses to “SC-Maintenance From Parents In Law Cannot Be Claimed By DIL – 2008”

Hi,
Iam Tejbahadur Singh. I had sermonized our only son Vikash Marriage on 26-2-2001 to Hemlata Singh, residing at Agra. On 30-6-2001 Hemlata Singh father Sudhir Kumar Singh Jadaun has registered a case against me, my wife and my son vikas Singh at PS Sahayal, District Auraiya U.P. U/S 498A/323/506/ &3/4 Dowry Act suddenly. Details is given below:-
That complainant Sudhir Kumar Singh Jadaun has registered FIR against the petitioners in which he has narrated that he has given as dowry to the petitioners of Rs.2,5000.00 and twenty tolas gold including ornaments,VCR, washing machine, utensils furniture’s is totally false and there is no any written and Independent confirmation.
That complainant Sudhir Kumar Singh Jadaun has registered FIR against the petitioners in which he has narrated that “After marriage of his daughter with the petitioners son Vikash Singh petitioners have had her daughter in good circumstances of month (27-2-2001 to 3-4-2001) Thereafter on 4-4-2001 applicants eye’s fixed on complainant agricultural land which is available at village Gahla, District Etah is totally false and there is no any written and Independent confirmation. That allegations made in FIR against the petitioners are contradictory and is not to be heard. A man shall not be permitted to “blow hot and cold” with reference to the same traction at different time, on the truth of each of two conflicting allegation to suit his private interest.
That complainant Sudhir Kumar Singh Jadaun has registered FIR against the petitioners in which he has narrated that applicants have demanded one Motor Cycle and rupees one lakh as dowry for his son vikash singh is totally false and there is no any written and Independent confirmation. Because demand of Rupees on Lakh for opening of Computer Centre at village Barru or Dibiapur;Auraiya is ridiculed. Rupees one lakh is very meek money for opening of Computer Centre. Because the act itself does not constitute guilt unless with done guilty intent. Complainant has made allegans contraria non est. audients (Latin)
That complainant Sudhir Kumar Singh Jadaun has registered FIR against the petitioners in which he has narrated that on 10-5-2001 he has came to applicants house with his relatives Nitin Pratap Singh, Mahesh Singh Senger is totally wrong. On 10-5-2001 complainant has came the applicants home with his son in law Ajai Kumar Singh Gaur and Arun Kumar Singh and hence FIR allegations is baseless. Because Smt. Hemlata Singh D/O Sudhir Kumar Jadaun complainant is living at Agra with his Sister-in-Law Ajai Kumar Singh Gaur house. The complainant has reported in FIR that her daughter was beaten by hammer by the applicants is ridiculed and concocted. If Smt. Hemlata Singh had been beaten by hammer then she had definitely broken her bones. Thus an allegation contrary to a FIR is not admissible. That it is specifically stated that there was no injury caused to the Hemlata Singh to the daughter of complainant, if at all any injury is allegedly found on the person of the injured namely HemLata same might have been manufactured by the complainant with the help of doctor.
That complainant Sudhir Kumar Singh Jadaun had given parawise reply in Case 2648/2001 U/S 406/504//506 IPC registered against Sudhir Kumar Singh Jadaun, Smt. Hemlata Singh,Ajaikumar Singh Gaur, Smt. Rekha Singh by applicant Smt. Saroj Tomar in which he has narrated that on 30/6/01 her daughter Hemlata Singh had came to Dibiapur far from village Barru(applicants house) 5 k.M. of his relative Arun Kumar Singh and where she has telephoned to the complainant for alleged harassment committed by the petitioner’s then he came from Agra to Dibiapur and after seeing her daughter position he reported Dowry and harassment case in PS Sahayal,Auriaya against the petitioners while before he narrated in his FIR that he had with his friend and relative came from Agra to Village Barru and met her daughter in applicants house and then see her position had gone to PS Sahayal, Auraiya. Thus, that allegations made in FIR against the petitioners are contradictory and is not to be heard.
. That it is relevant to state here that the petitioner was working as Confidential Assistant of I.G. of Police P/B U.P. Police Headquarters Allahabad he had to be present on his duty from 9-00 a.m. to 8-00p.m. and in case he wanted to leave the station he had to take permission from I.G. of Police, Allahabad. The petitioners were very well present at Allhabad. He did not leave the Station of Allhabad and on 9/5/2001, 10-6-2001 and 20-6-2001. The petitioner was granted casual leave on 26/6/2001. with the permission to leave station and he directly went to Etawah and from where he purchase solar Cooker and solar System from Vikash Bhawan Etawah with name of his wife for which the receipt was found and thereafter he immediately returned to Allahabad by train. It is worthwhile to mention here that on 30/6/2001 when complainant sudhir Kumar Singh Jadaun had registered above case against the petitioner Tej Bahadur Singh and Vikash Singh were not present at his village Barru. Petitioner Tej Bahadur Singh was present at U.P. Police Headquarters. Allahabad and son Vikash Singh was in Delhi.
That considering the above noticed facts and circumstances of the case, it is, absolutely clear that the prosecution story is highly improbable, concocted and false the complainant is order to harass the petitioners and seeking money from the petitioners lodged the FIR against petitioners family on account of his malice intention and since the first information report is based on malafide intention .
That from the facts and circumstances stated in the FIR report it is clear that the complainant was in hurry to lodge the FIR without making any sincere efforts for the compromise in the matter on account of false and concocted FIR the right and liberty of the petitioners is being jeopardized.
I want to your help, decisions of the Honble High Courts, Supreme Court of India in favour to me.

hi…i am the advocate who had argued the case referred above in the supreme court for the parents-in-law i.e. vimlaben’s case. there is a slight correction-the case is not from karnataka and the supreme court had not taken the karnataka high court to task. the case is from gujarat and the high court in question is the ahmedabad high court…

Misc

State Police Websites

Top Rated Posts

Some Interesting Stats On Arrests Of Women

In 1930, the British govt arrested 17,000 women for their involvement in the Dandi Yatra (Salt March).
During 1937 to 1947 (10 Years), they arrested 5,000 women involved in the freedom struggle.
From 2004 to 2006, the govt of India arrested 90,000 women of all ages under 498A. On the average, 27,000 women per year are being arrested under this flawed law. These are stats from the NCRB.

Disclaimer:

The family of the writer was tortured by the Indian Police in an attempt to extort over a $100,000 by holding them in custody for over a week. The police, in cahoots with the magistrate and the PP, did this due to the ridiculous allegations made in a 498A case by his embittered ex-wife. She filed the case years after he and his family had last seen her. Thousands of 498A cases are filed each year in India by women seeking to wreak vengeance on their husbands and in-laws. Enormous sums are extorted from intimidated families implicated in these cases by corrupt Indian police officers and elements of the Indian judiciary. The author and his family haven't bribed any public official nor have they given in to the extortion. This blog aims to raise awareness of due process in India. The content of this blog constitutes, opinions, observations, and publicly available documents. The intent is not to slander or defame anyone or any institution and is the manifestation of the author's right to freedom of expression – with all the protections this right guarantees.